reporting science who is interested who

Reporting Science: Who Is Interested, Who Is Offended?

Black and white image of a revolving door: text on the floor reads,

'I'm afraid of revolving doors'

Blogs that covers scientific or medical matters frequently criticise

both the inadequate and uninformed coverage of these issues in

mainstream media while despairing at the ready coverage given to (say)

anti-scientific or pro-CAM topics. Too often, science or health

journalists seem to reproduce a press release about a study

uncritically and make no attempt to check the underlying science,

hypotheses or results of the studies or trials.

We rely upon journalists of various media to read and understand

studies that are of general interest and to report upon them

accurately. However, as Goldacre expresses it, although:

newspapers like to fantasise that they are mediators between

specialist tricky knowledge and the wider public...I wouldn't be so

flattering. In fact, if you have access to the original journals,

you can see just how rubbish things can get.

I have much sympathy with Goldacre's view however I am mindful that

the Royal Society does place some of the blame with scientists:

A problem arises though when controversial research designed to

provoke a debate within the scientific community is reported as

gospel by the general media.

At best, it reduces trust in scientists and the media; at worst, it

can lead to people making poor choices and harming their health...

Recently, there have been discussions as to whether scientists fail to

understand the necessity of framing their knowledge and arguments so

that they can be understood by their audience.

Frames are a model used in communication studies to try and explain

how people interpret information, and also to explain why sometimes

the information itself seems to be irrelevant to the final opinion

people have of an issue.That is because the same facts, when

presented from different point of views (because that is really

what cultural, political, religious etc influences create - a point

of view) generate different reactions from different people.

Framing theory explains how how people process information; and a

better understanding of that process can help us make communication

more efficient.

Nisbet and Mooney have taken the argument further with the April 15

publication of Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them. They illustrate

the debate about the commincation of science by highlighting the

raging controversy around the public discussion of evolution,

Intelligent Design and creationism.

We agree with Dawkins on evolution and admire his books, so we

don't enjoy singling him out. But he stands as a particularly stark

example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such

as global warming and evolution, to a wary public.

Scientists excel at research; creating knowledge is their forte.

But presenting this knowledge to the public is something else

altogether. It's here that scientists and their allies are

stumbling in our information-overloaded society -- even as

scientific information itself is being yanked to center stage in

high-profile debates.

Scientists have traditionally communicated with the rest of us by

inundating the public with facts; but data dumps often don't work.

People generally make up their minds by studying more subtle, less

rational factors. In 2000 Americans didn't pore over explanations

of President Bush's policies; they asked whether he was the kind of

guy they wanted to have a beer with.

So in today's America, like it or not, those seeking a broader

public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for

conveying knowledge. Especially on divisive issues, scientists

should package their research to resonate with specific segments of

the public. Data dumping -- about, say, the technical details of

embryology -- is dull and off-putting to most people. And the

Dawkins-inspired "science vs. religion" way of viewing things

alienates those with strong religious convictions. Do scientists

really have to portray their knowledge as a threat to the public's

beliefs? Can't science and religion just get along?

I don't accept that scientists don't know how to frame complex issues

or write for a general audience (both Ben Goldacre of Bad Science and

the contributors to Scienceblogs are evidence of this).

There does seem to be a dearth of mainstream media outlets for good

science. Health and science journalists argue that editors are

unwilling to devote extensive feature space to science and health

despite the vast amounts of newsprint that are given over to

mis-reporting of these issues. Some journalists argue that they are

discouraged from publicising criticism about some self-tests for fear

of alienating advertisers (however, as there is comparatively little

money in CAM for individual practitioners unless they are media

superstars and even well-known purveyors of self-tests such as

YorkTest say that they spend little on advertising, this seems rather

specious). Writing about dubious allergy tests, Dr. Adrian Morris

claims that:

It is the author's and Warner's experience that health journalists

are unlikely to investigate or expose these pseudo-scientific tests

as fallacious for fear of alienating their "complementary medicine"

readership [ref]. [The Warner reference is to his editorial on

Allergy and the Media.]

Articles that debunk the poor science behind various CAM and

self-tests might attract criticism from an audience that is in

sympathy with them but I would be surprised if that is sufficient to

deter any interested editors or commissioners. However, it seems as if

Orac is in agreement with the Morris and Warner viewpoint. He

describes:

the script for most TV news stories about "alternative" therapies:

lots of testimonials, no studies, and a brief blurb from the token

skeptic whose words are overwhelmed by those of the credulous...If

you wonder why people believe in woo so much and have so little

clue about evidence-based medicine, you have but to look at how

these issues are reported in the media to see one major reason why.

Between credulous producers who believe despite published medical

studies saying otherwise that [insert your favourite woo or CAM

and] bubble-headed physicians willing to report whatever such

producers think the audience wants to hear, it's a wonder that

evidence-based medicine ever gets reported at all.

On occasion, I've been known to daydream about being one of these

talking head physicians doing these stories, leaving aside the fact

that I'm not telegenic and that I have a face perfect for radio and

a voice that's best for blogging...Of course, even if those

obstacles were overcome, I wouldn't last past one or two segments

about any alternative medicine. Even if I could tone down my

skepticism considerably, to the point of nonsarcastic

wishy-washy-ness, that wouldn't be enough. If I expressed a

skeptical, strictly evidence-based viewpoint, the audience would

soon be calling up the station demanding my firing, and I'd be

tossed out of there on my behind.

Perhaps unreasonably, I like Goldacre's more optimistic view of the

public:

Alongside the best efforts to empower patients, misleading

information conveyed with hyperbole is paradoxically disempowering;

and it's fair to say that the media don't have an absolutely

brilliant track record in faithfully reporting medical news...

Only those who have never met the full range of people in their

community will ever claim that the public are stupid: in most

doctors' experience, people are almost universally sharp witted.

Where they are misled, someone has worked hard at the job.

Unfortunately, once a bad idea has attained universal currency it

becomes part of the frame by which we interpret subsequent

information. E.g., both Patrick Holford and Gillian McKeith promote

the use of self-tests as a means of empowering people. However, it is

not empowering to be able to mis-diagnose yourself and follow needless

allergen-avoidance techniques. More generally, it seems harmful that

people are being encouraged to believe that modern life is harmful

rather than safer and healthier than even comparatively recent

history.

Although he was writing about research on guns, Dezhbakhsh famously

wrote:

The academic survival of a flawed study may not be of much

consequence. But, unfortunately, the ill-effects of a bad policy,

influenced by flawed research, may hurt generations.

Frequently, I think Dezhbakhsh's insight when I read Junk Food Science

(see, e.g., Baby Fat Fears or any of the articles that address the

general hysteria about the obesity epidemic). I think about it when I

read about parents who are still terrified when they vaccinate their

children because of the MMR-autism reporting.

...deciding to go with MMR, and taking my son to be vaccinated was

still one of the most terrifying things I have ever done. I think

there is little that is more horrifying to a parent than the idea

that your own actions could directly and irreperably harm your

child. I am a rational individual, and a strong proponent of the

scientific method, and all that I had read on this subject could

still not completely eradicate that fear.

It seems that mainstream media has a lot of influence in perpetuating

flawed science and little interest in disseminating robust criticism

of what passes for science even when it has an adverse affect on

spending policies or matter of public health and interest.

Click on the image or visit Flickr.

Labels: communication, credibility, framing, public health, science,

sloppy journalism

(C) Copyright Breath Spa for Kids posted by Shinga at 11:16 AM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post: